4 -TheMichigan Daily - Wednesday, May 3, 1995 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan RONNIE GLASSBERG Editor in Chief ADRIENNE JANNEY JOEL F. KNUTSON Editorial Page Editors I Unless otherwvise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a miiajority of the Dailyi editorial board. Al oiither articles, letters aid artoos do iot necessarily reflect the opinnon of the Dour 's editorials board. . e University is all too eager to join the national trend in having a code of non- academic conduct. Such codes have become the norm at American universities. The University's own code, otherwise known as the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibili- ties, came up for review, along with several proposed amendments, at April's Board of Regents meeting. Although the administra- tion decided to scrap the interim policy, it predictably is creating a new and perma- nent code of academic conduct - against the urging of several major student organi- zations. Regents mostly agreed with the proposal first set forth by Regent Rebecca McGowan (D-Ann Arbor). Her main plug dealt with stu- dent input rather than other issues. She stressed that students be involved in the drafting of the new document. Also, Regent Andrea Fischer Newman (R-Ann Arbor) graciously allowed Michigan Student Assembly President Flint Wainess to speak during the code discourse in the interest of student representation. While some individual and prominent stu- dents have been involved, the University show- cases them as if the student body fully supports the code. Even students who support some type of document depart fromthe views of Hartford Everyone's doing it Why shouldn't we adopt a conduct code? and the University. Students are kept mostly on the outside looking into the process. Bogged down by apparent incompetence such as the botched amendment hearings, they remain vir- tually powerless. Efforts to keep students at bay are evi- denced by the regents' cool response to the student protest at the last regents' meeting. The demonstration was dealt with in stride, but ignored as if students they were spoiled children. This is where the paternalistic atti- tudes of the regents become apparent. "We listened hard," said Regent Philip Power (D- Ann Arbor), referring pointedly to the students who, according to his standards, behaved civ- illy by speaking at the limited public com- ments. But Power also said firmly and finally, "There will be a code." Like well-intentioned parents, the University listens for a moment, but does what it would have done in the first place. The regents retain a condescending attitude toward students: They feel that the code will be a learning experience. Regent Shirley McFee (R-Battle Creek) said she believes that serving on a code jury will give students practice for the real jury in "adult society." Regent Deane Baker (R-Ann Arbor), the only regent who spoke against a code, dam- aged his credibility. He confused the current code of non-academic conduct with a speech code. One valid point could be gleaned from Baker's fight - a conduct code, improperly written, has the potential to turn into a speech code. However, the code's problems are far larger. Its language is open to misinterpreta- tion at every turn. A classic example of this in the interim code is the modifier "sexual." In everyday speech the phrase "sexual harass- ment and assault" reads smoothly - but from a legalistic viewpoint, meaning changes. While the regents intend to make the code less legalistic, they will find it impossible to write a document of this gravity without cros, ing into legal territory. They would like s more simple document and thereby would be more dangerous. A policy open to endless interpretation is also open to endless abuse. There are complaints and problems with the code, from the incorrect interpretation of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, to the objectionable in loco parentis doctrine. Many student and faculty leaders oppose the code, and it raises many legal questions per- taining to civil rights. Despite all of this, on4 fact is indisputable: The University is not set up to handle a policy of this magnitude. It cannot handle simultaneously being legislaturejudge and police. Any attempt to do so would be positively foolish. The University is not equipped to enforce the code that it intends to put in place - it will open itself to numerous kinds of legal vulnerabilities. No legal basis exists for the University to follow the trend of developing a code of no1 academic conduct. As an educational institu- tion, the University cannot afford to keep any such policy. Mousetrap Juvenile offender's rights must be protected Walking the line Increased vigilance must accompany civil liberties Iwo steps forward, three steps back. That seems to be the rule that applies to Gina Grant's life. She pulled herself up to the top of. the heap and was accepted early decision to Harvard University. Then mysterious news clippings appeared, indicating that she had killed her alcoholic abusive mother at 14 years old. Harvard reneged on Grant's admis- sion, claiming that she had lied on an applica- tion question and in a student interview. The grounds on which she was refused are ludicrous. She committed an offense as a juvenile and served her time. Juvenile crime records are sealed once the child reaches adulthood. Hence, Harvard essentially placed Grant in a mousetrap: She was not legally obligated to provide the information that the question asked - yet she was required to answer every question - and truthfully. Grant's situation has set up a paradox of semantics. Harvard cannot expect her to talk about a sealed case, then accuse her of lying. The right to higher education is something that even women in prison are allowed. Grant should be allowed the same. This position, of course, is somewhat compromised by the rights and liabilities of educational institu- tions. Naturally Harvard retains the right to choose its students - it is a private institution and is not bound to the same laws as, for example, the federal government. However, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government once admitted a high-ranking foreign official well-known for his involvement covering genocide and allowed him to stay throughout his court trial - how is the current scenario any worse than genocide?. Evidently, Harvardis running scared. Grant received great amounts of negative unrelated publicity. Everything from her IQ to the gory details of her mother's death have been re- ported. The underlying concern in everyone's mind is whether Grant is a danger to the Harvardcommunity. Uponcloserexamination it becomes evident that the circumstances were likely extenuating. But justifying her crime is pointless and irrelevant. What is important to notice is that Harvard is making agrave errorby equating a juvenile crime with an adult crime. Grant's rights have been overlooked. She has served her time and her rights technically have been restored to that of any citizen. Moreover, the infringement on Grant's rights goes far beyond admission to Harvard. The talk of opening her records is more than alarming - it is blatantly illegal. Until the laws are changed, the seal on juvenile records must be kept intact. And any move to change the law would be an egregious mistake. The bottom line is this: Children deserve another chance. That is why the juvenile offense laws are in place - the records are sealed for a reason. In particular, Gina Grant has done well with this chance. She volun- teers helping high-risk youth, effectively turn- ing her bad experiences into a positive trend. In addition, Grant worked to support herself during high school, and all the while earning high grades and participating in extracurricu- lar activities - a model student and citizen by any standard. Every indication of full reha- bilitation has been shown by Grant's record. Harvard should consider this as it reevaluates her admission. Tn the wake of the horrific attack on Okla- homa City, Americans are just beginning to come to grips with the fact that the greatest threats in our society often come from within. The bombers in Oklahoma were not Arab terrorists as early speculation reported, but were part of American society. The greatest danger to our safety is the criminal element that exists here at home. In therush tocreate anti-terrorismmeasures aimed at preventing another such attack on American soil, the question needs to be asked: At what point are we willing to trade our civil liberties for increased control over lunatics on the fringe of society? In the past, this has not been an equitable trade. Government success in infiltrating groups such as the Ku Klux Klan paved the way for numerous lawsuits brought against the group and the convictions of members on previously unsolved crimes. Clearly, without effective monitoring and detective work, many groups would never be brought to justice. Yet this same power to openly investigate politi- cal and social groups resulted in reprehen- sible abuses of power, such as character assas- sinations of civil rights workers and privacy infringements of anti-war protestors during the 1960s. The severity of the abuses resulted in an executive order that must establish a link to an actual or suspected crime to investigate a political or social group. One such link that was established between Terry Nichols to Tim McVeigh and the bombing is what allowed the FBI to obtain warrants to search and subse- quently arrest James Nichols for weapons and explosive charges, possibly resulting in further suspects in the case. 4 As the Justice Department moves into the federal law enforcement following the bomb- ing, it is of vital importance that the fine line that exists between threat and free speech not be breached. Being a part of the Michigan Militia does in no way make a person more of a threat to society than being of Palestinian descent would make one a terrorist in Israel. Civil liberties remain in place even for those we try to make guilty by association: namel right-wing extremist groups with antigovern- ment views. Are the residents in Decker who claim that the bombing was a government plot dangerous? For law enforcement officials, the answer should be no. There is no way to deter- mine whether such ideas are spoken out of hatred, bias or simple misinformation. That some people believe everything they hear is a severe problem in an information-based soci- ety, but it cannot be solved by legislation and detective work. The best way to counter suc perceptions is by criticism and correction - not eradication. Anti-terrorism legislation will undoubt- edly pass Congress with little debate. The challenge will be to ensure that in respond- ing to the threats of a few, the civil liberties of all are not left by the wayside. Law enforcement cannot create a climate of fear and paranoia by insinuating guilt by asso- ciation in a group alone. Individual men bers deemed threats to society need to be brought to justice while maintaining the right of others to speak their mind, however unpopular their views may be. Attack vio- lent actions, not violent words.